About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 9, Farrell 4, Ted Egan 3, Tom Waddell 3, Kelly Cullen 3, Mr. Egan 2, Pacific Gas & Electric 2, Campbell 2, The City 2, Stephanie 2, California 2, Waddell 1, Mr. Rodriguez 1, Guillermo Rodriguez 1, Tom Lydell 1, Ga 1, Dollar 1, At&t 1, Ywca 1, Dph 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 1, 2012
    11:00 - 11:30am PDT  

11:00am
subsidy is available. right now, in the 2012-2013 fiscal year, we're operating 1027 units, across projects in the city. in 17 different projects. most of those units are for single adults. however, we do have 111 units for families. the project is based on the concept that providing housing is not only more humane, but faze it's also more cost-effective than providing inertia or leaving people to the streets. we find savings in public health care costs and the emergency health care system and wait the program as mr. lee explains these are general funds.
11:01am
and we underwrite the contracts and implement the contracts and monitor the contracts. >> was there -- just when the program was established in 2005 -- what were the sources that general fund dollars that came from? was that both from hsa and dph? >> yes, it was. the first project was the hotel essex and that was an hsa project. i would say at this point, i don't have it in front of me, but i would say about two-thirds of the units are dph units and one-third are hsa units. >> you say we created a funding stream for it, but basically we just took general fund dollars and call it local operating subsidy program dollars now. what was not funded? what were those dollars potentially used for before that? was that ga? hsa? and something else dph is trying to get background on the
11:02am
program itself. honestly, i don't know. with the overlay being this is a prudent use of -- preferable to emergency services and the costs in the best of all worlds would be the dollars -- the best all worlds would be emergency services dollars that were no longer used. i'm not sure if that is actually happening in the real world. >> so we might be able to describe some cost-savings by having a program that has the services where people live and actually yields greater cost-savings that could be a source of funding? i see miss campbell standing up. >> chair, if i understand your question, these are routine general fund monies subject to appropriation each year in the hsa and dph budget. there is not a particular funding source other than the
11:03am
general fund. >> thank you, please continue. >> so projects that receive local operating subsidy dollars for the operating are also receiving funds for support services from the same agency, city agency, that is originating the general funds. in this case the department of puck health is entering into a contract for supportive services at the site. the good news with this particular project it received a large grant for services, the social innovation fund, which is a federal grant that is funneled through kind of an intermediary has made a two-year award to the project. and the great news also about that is that there is a full evaluation of the program that will be funded by the grant. so the analyst's report recommends that the outcomes and findings of that evaluation be shared here at the board and we're really excited about that. because we do have information
11:04am
about cost-savings. there is a large body of research on the cost-effectiveness of supportive housing. we have a digest of a number of those studies and the study was done in san francisco about five years ago of the plaza hotel. we can share that with you. so the project at-hand is the kelly cullen community located at 220 golden gate. this is also known as the former central ywca. this is our largest project to-date. the project will provide 174 units -- i'm sorry 172 units plus two managers units for formerly hopeless individuals with the greatest medical, behavioral health and housing needs. construction is wrapping up as we speak. and tenants will gib and begin moving in december 1st and all units will be occupied by the end of may,
11:05am
2013. all units offer kitchenettes andprived bath and there are a credits. this is a historic site and a great deal of effort has gone into preserving the unique features of the building. on the ground floor we are pleased to have partnered with dph to create 11,000 square foot public health clinic. this is a brand-new state-of-the-art facility, that is also being completed on the same schedule and will be opened for business on january 1st. it will serve the tenants, but also the greater tenderloin community. so that is a great, new asset to our city. one thing that i would like to mention about the local
11:06am
operating subsidy, that is a very powerful aspect of it is that its existence makes it possible to bring capital sources to these projects that otherwise we not get buzz we are ensuring an ongoing income stream for these projects. and on the with that income stream will investors and lendors participate in the development n. this particular case, the building costs for 220 golden gate, kelly cullen community were funded by over $50 million in arra stimulus fund, $20 million in local city funds. state funds through the mental health services act. about $15 million in private equity. and some private bank funds to the affordable housing program. so it's because of the localing operating subsidy that
11:07am
the project pencils and that we can bring these tremendous resources to the development of the project. so that concludes my presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you before. we go into the budget analyst, just a quick question about the different health clinic services in the area. are we seing a movement from waddell or other services that are going to be -- is the whole operation of public health clinic services changing in the tenderloin and how does it interact with other services? >> dph staff couldn't come because of schedule change but this will be the focus of new homeless and tom lydell will still exists a clinic, but this clinic will be the new centralized location for homelessness services. there will be a full array of
11:08am
behavioral health, mental health, nurse practitioners, and not just for homeless people and not just for the residents, but part of the city's clinic system. >> so tom waddell will answer as well. >> i'm corin buchanan department of public health. tom waddell will stay open as an emergency site, but the main operation will move to this site. >> thank you. let's move to the budget report pled guilty rose. >> mr. chair and members of committee, on page 8 of our report, we have a table 1 and
11:09am
that table shows that the kelly cullen community will receive subsidies for 172 units at an average estimated subsidy of $601 per units, per month, that is for the 172 units and over the 15-year term of the agreement as you can see in table 5, the total estimated costs are $18,475,118 and they are general fund costs as miss campbell has stated. we recommend that you approve this resolution as consistent with previous board policy on other similar agreements. we also recommend that you request that the department of puck health report to the budget and finance county full board of supervisors on the findings from the new york university study on housing and health outcomes.
11:10am
and i really just want to reiterate or add a couple of points. this demonstrates something that we all know about homelessness and this is the important link with health. so we're really proud to have put together this project with clinic on the ground floor. second, the social innovation fund grant that miss ely referred to was a hypercompetitive national competition of which there were only four recipients and so we're really pleased not only that the project was deemed
11:11am
worthy to win the competition, but also that it will bring resources that will directly reduce the amount of money that the department of public health has to pay for the project for services. it's a two-year grant with a potential for a three-year extension. and then finally, i just want to highlight that this project is a partnership in the most genuine meaning of the term. at tmdc is maybe on the title and we are the owner, but it's generally a community asset of which we are merely the stewards. the department of public health, the mayor's office of housing, the state and federal government and many other parties came together to bring the project to fruition and it would not have happened with anyone. thank you. >> thank you very much.
11:12am
if there have are no other members of public, we will close public comment. supervisor kim. >> i want to say had you appreciative of the project and it's exciting and it's a beautiful, beautiful building and it will be great to see this finally opened by the end of the year, is that right? to be permanently supportive housing and a public clinic space for dph. i know to speaking to the staff at tom waddell, they have been looking for a space that is more conducive and welcoming to our most vulnerable residents and patients and think it's greater that they have a welcoming site right in the heart of tenderloin at the y. i had an opportunity to go on a tour with don flak so i'm happy to move this forward with a motion to approve and also as
11:13am
a committee report. >> we could take that without objection. also before we actually i gavel down, i would like to get a tour of the site to work that in the next month or so. it would be great and i know it's a great milestone for our city that this project is coming to fruition. so we'll approve that. send it forward as a committee report with recommendation. [ gavel ] thank you item no. 3, please. >> item no. 3, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of environment to spend a grant in the amount of $2,977,000 from the california public utilities commission through pacific gas & electric company to continue with an energy use and demand reduction through energy-efficiency program in the city and county of san francisco for the period
11:14am
of october 15th, 2012 through december 31, 2012. >> mr. rodriguez, welcome. >> thank you, guillermo rodriguez, department of the environment. the department is requesting the committee's approval to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $2,977,000 from the california public utilities commission through pacific gas & electric company to continue an energy use and demand reduction through energy-efficiency program through the period of october 15 of this year through december 31 of this year. it working cooperatively with pg&e and additional funding is being allocated to the city to accelerate approximately 450 businesses and multi-family projects totaling about 3 million megawatts in savings. the savings of the 450 projects is significant just to give you
11:15am
an example of what 3 megawatts of savings equivalent to running 3,000 san francisco homes for a year. so these 450 projects are important. a few examples of the project certainly include familiar places at&t park and the fresh fish market at geneva is one of our projects. pacific supermarket on 2900 almaine is a project. the catholic charities building on 1948 ocean is a project. we have some large projects like the palace hotel. we just heard tenderloin housing clinic is one of our other projects and conrad house is a project.
11:16am
the examples of the type of work are really very individual to each site, but a lot of it is for commercial office laguardias, commercial overhead lighting and a lot of it is changing their lighting for a new led project. in addition, there is lots of several kind of therm projects or natural gas projects that are included. in this next round. the last time i came before this committee there was an interest in understanding better our geographic representation of where historically the department has provided incentives and i provided the committee members -- and if i could have the overhead. this represents the example of the various programs that the department has had throughout the existence of these programs. the bulk of our programs are
11:17am
for commercial, and large multi-family housing units. and gives you just a sense of the projects and where they have been throughout san francisco. not only have businesses and residents saved money from these programs and we have had the positive benefits on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. but in some of the contractors performing the work, also employee local folks here in san francisco, are able to continue that program. we estimate about a little over $20 million that residents and businesses have saved. instead of writing a check out on a monthly basis they have been able to keep that here in san francisco. and it's been a very positive aspect. the department wishes to recognize pg&e for their help in expediting this process, so that we can complete a lot of this work, this calendar year. i urge the committee's
11:18am
acceptance of the grant and my colleague ann kelly and myself are here to answer any questions. thank you. >> great. thank you for your presentation. this item does not have a budget analyst's report. so we can go on to public comment. and seeing no member of the public come forward for public comment. we will close public comment. thank you. and colleagues, can we have a motion to move this forward as a committee report to the november 6th board of supervisors' meeting with recommendation? we'll take that without objection [ gavel ] ment i. no. 4, please. >> i. no. 4, ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulation code article 12a by amending section 906.5 to priest the payroll expense tax exclusion for small business net new payroll for years 2012 through 2015 from terminating in event that the voters of the city and county of san francisco pass a gross receipts tax.
11:19am
>> thank you victor. we have legislationoff aide to supervisor farrell, catheryn stephanie, welcome. >> good morning, supervisors, cathery stephanie, lengthiest aide to supervisor farrell. what have you before you is clean-up legislationings that follows our payroll tax exclusion legislation that was drafted before the gross receipts ballot language was finalized and submitted. so it was originally drafted and legislation will actually terminate upon passage of the gross receipts tax prior to the end of 2012. of course that is assuming that proposition e does pass on november 6th. this legislation before you amends it, so it no it longer terminates november 6th and allows the exemption to remain in effect for tax years 2012-2015. if the gross receipts tax does pass, the city's payroll expense tax would phase out
11:20am
from tax years 2014 through 2018 and ted is here to explain how the facout is going to work with the exclusion. as you recall the purpose of the payroll tax exclusion for small businesss is to create and increase the number of jobs within the city and county of san francisco. by providing an incentive for small businesses to create new jobs. the legislation before you today will allow that to happen by keeping the exemption in place through 2015 as originally intended. there are two recommendations in the budget legislative analyst's report that supervisor farrell is fine with. we also have an additional amendment that ted egan is here to explain, lines 14-16 and i have copies of that. again, mr. egan will explain that why it's necessary to calculate the base year payroll tax with the phase-in and exempting. so if i could give
11:21am
this to victor. with that i would either ask that you go to the budget legislative analyst or to ted egan. >> why don't we go to mr. egan first and then to the budget analyst. mr. egan. >> good morning, supervisors, ted egan, controller's office. the effect of this legislation will really be to bring the exclusion brand new in line with the way other payroll tax exclusions would be treated in the event that the gross receipts tax passes. effectively what that means is that the incentive will remain in place, which is to say businesses will be able to exclude growth in their payroll expense up to $250,000. through 2015. however, because the payroll tax rate will
11:22am
decline, as the payroll tax is phased out, the value of this incentive to businesses will decline at the same time. the amendment that miss stephanie refers to is one that changes the language on lines 14-16 of page 2. that language really pre-dates the idea of the phase-out of the payroll tax and the gross receipts proposal and if it was not changed it would basically prevent many if not most small businesss from ever taking advantage of this exclusion. what it would really do is say that that in order for a business to take advantage of the exclusion, their actual payroll tax liability would have to increase from one year to the next even though the rate was going down. so in 2014, that would mean that a business would have to grow its payroll by 10% before it could start to take dollar 1 of
11:23am
exclusion by 2015, that number is unknown. but it could be 25% before that number is -- before that threshold is reached and the business could take advantage of the exclusion. it's my understanding and this is not a recommendation from our office, but it's not my understanding that is not the supervisors' intent with the legislation. i was merely asked to draft alternative language, which you have before you. >> okay. thank you very much. we'll go to the budget am, analyst, mr. rose. . >> [pwha-eus/]ed on the current payroll tax rate of 139 5% as you know the controller's office had previously estimated reduced payroll expense tax revenues at $2 million annually from the net new payroll tax
11:24am
exclusion. so that would be a total reduction in city revenues of about $8 million over the four-year period of the exclusion. under the proposed ordinance, the estimated reduction in city revenues would be $7.3 million over the four-year term of the exclusion. if the voters do approve the gross receipts tax proposed under proposition e. we also point out on page 7 of the report that the office of the treasurer and tax collector is working with the mayor and the controller's office to identity funds to pay for an estimated additional one-time programming and related costs, which are needed. they are estimated at $55,000. we consider approval a policy matter of the two recommendations that we have is to amend the proposed ordinance and this is for clarification purposes as to the intent. if a person is exempt from
11:25am
filing a payroll tax, the regulations code 6.9-2 in the base year, the person's base year payroll tax shall be $150,000 and the purpose of calculating this exclusion. and with my recommend that you amend the proposed ordinance to require the issuance of a report to the [pwra-urpbgs/] committee of budget and finance committee of the board of supervisors and assessing the effect of the exclusion on job creation and payroll growth along small businesses that apply for the net new payroll tax exclusion. we consider it as amended as a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> i'm just wondering what supervisor farrell as position on the first recommendation, you are in accordance with that? >> is he fine with both of those. >> thank you. this item we can open up for public comment. and seeing no one here, but us
11:26am
chickens we'll close public comment. just some words on this. i actually did not support this ordinance as a stand-alone ordinance, looking at the exemption first of all for small businesses earlier this year. i know that that actual ordinance was anticipating a gross receipts tax that could go to the ballot. we hospital yet drafted that gross receipts tax. i did not approve -- i did not vote in favor of. it i think i was the one person for voting against it. my reasoning for doing that i didn't want to do one exception to our current business tax. i didn't want to do that, but i'm actually going to be supporting this measure today, because i see in context of an actual gross receipts tax measure that is going to the ballot. that will be overall changes to the gross receipts tax if this measure actually now relates to that directly. and i can anticipate what the
11:27am
actual structure of the gross receipts tax is going to be in relation to this measure. so i will be supportive of this going forward. knowing that it's in relation to the whole business tax in general. since we are actually going to be ignoring, i guess prop e will pass or not we'll know next week and it makes sense to move this forward to the full board. so i can accept the moving this -- i was contemplating whether i was going to move it forward ways committee report or not. but i think that given certification of the election could happen sooner than later, i think it's important that we move it forward to the next board meeting. so i will be okay with that, to doing that. we have recommendation from budget analyst can we get a motion to accept those. >> motion to accept amendments. and then motion to move forward as a committee report for the november 6th meeting of this item.
11:28am
>> so moved. >> we can take that without objection. [ gavel ] . >> did we also make the amendment that i put forward with ted egan, the language? did we also make that amendment or did you make that amendment, i should say? or you did just make the amendments from the budget analyst? >> we made the amendments from the budget analyst. the first one seems to be already in the ordinance or is not? >> that adds additional language. ted? >> i believe that the piece of piece of paper replaces lines 14-16 on page 2 of the ordinance. >> okay, i'm just reviewing that right now.
11:29am
thank you. so let's rescind the vote. colleagues. >> motion to rescind. >> we'll rescind the vote. >> motion to amend the ordinance as articulated by miss stephanie. >> okay. and we'll take that without objection. and on the underlying ordinance, moving forward as a committee report, to the november 6th meeting with recommendation, we can take that without objection: >> so moved. >> thank you. >> that completes the agenda. >> we